What is the difference between the mk iii and 22/45

The longer barrel of the standard 6 gives here a quicker target acquisition and smooth recoil. We are both going to order MarkIIIs soon. Thanks for all the legwork, and such a thorough post!!!!!!! Total weight isnt anywhere near as important as how it balances though. Those tapered barrels shave a lot of weight from the muzzle, improving balance.

The balances right at the front grip strap- holding higher up that line on the frame to the slide stop. It used to balance to the front of the frame. Cutting it down made a huge difference in feel. What GuitarHeroe66 said, best. Both work equally well for Steel Challenge Rimfire, the steel is not that small or that far away.

AND never took it apart for cleaning in that whole time! Just a boresnake and some WD40 sprayed on the bolt. LOL, thats how I roll. So yes the T's taper cuts off 3oz compared to the lightening cut of the slabside. Imagine how much heavier the slabside would be if it wasn't cut and was just a straight bull barrel.

But still the T's taper does not make it a thin barrel by any means. The Standard 6 weights My crappy digital calipers shows the end of the barrel measured in front of the sight as. Too lazy to pull the 5. It would be interesting to know the horizontal thickness of the slab sides. The metal frames help counter balance the barrel imo. Please don't think I'm trying to argue about this, just a friendly discussion.

I forget what width and height I am running. PM me if you want to know the dimensions. I would love another one in SS, man oh man One of my best purchase in a while, I love this pistol. Thats a monster!!!!!

Nah, it's all good. Interesting discussion. The slabside measures. Since my brother got a mkIII stainless, when I pulled it apart, I was surprised how light the frame was on it. I expected it to be heavier. Thanks for all of the great information! I'm so glad everyone had great awesome information to share. I have a good friend that has had firearms and been shooting all of his life. He was the person who originally suggested the Ruger models.

I think he just wants another shooting buddy : Here is a quick pic. Hi, all. I need to once again tap the collective wisdom of the forum. I am wanting a. For various reasons I live in Canada I won't be able to try either of them before I buy. What are the differences between these, and which would you recommend? And is there a different semi-auto you would recommend instead of the above?

Thanks in advance for the advice! I love my Mark II, mainly for its aesthetics; it's a beautiful, classic design. Both are reliable and accurate guns. The Mark II, you can fall in love with. Not sure of the details, but they're not crazy about the new design.

I have a bull barrell Mk II. It is a tack driving gun and has never failed to chamber a round that I can remember in s of rounds. I now wish I had bought the standard MkII for it's historic classic design. I find the bull barrel to be a bit nose heavy. The classic is to me, in 4 inch barrell, perfectly ballanced.

Some day I will probably trade the bull for a standard just to get as close to Bill Rugers original as I can. Thanks for the advice! That helps. The Mark III is well proven for bullseye and is reliable and accurate. Let me introduce another thought. Proven, accurate and a knotch above the Mk III. Click to expand You're right, a very nice looking handgun. Good advice so far! Thanks everyone, any other thoughts?

I'm not sure if your stuck on ruger, but take a look at the browning buckmark. Same reliability as a ruger, IMO a superior trigger, and much easier to take down for cleaning. That is one sweet little tack driver. However, I understand they are no longer made and are quite valuable on the used market.

Either way it was a fun gun for the range. I think you'll be happy with one. Last edited: Mar 29, If you can, try and get a used MKII. The MKIII has additional "safety" features added in that don't really make it any safer like a loaded chamber indicator and IMO make for a worse shooting gun.

Rubik and Escher. Takes me forever to field strip the thing, but I also only do that about once every 3 months or so. The three extra mags that were labelled MK II have a silver smooth thumb stud, no exposed spring and no ledge. The Mark II's do not. Thanks, Eric. Both gun's mags work in each others. I was really happy when I bought the new gun and the old mags worked in it.

I didn't have to buy a bunch of new mags. Will take any grips with minor modifications. Both worked in my gun but the MKII mag didn't lock back the bolt. Only visible difference was a small opening at the top of the mag, I assume to engage the magazine release? In any event, the local gun shop returned the mag and replaced it with the correct one. All is good.